:lol: Those who connect anti-life posits with omni god posits, have to muse on why a superhero god does not end the experiment the anti-life people exclaim is a complete failure, based on the evidence of human suffering or/and the futility of human existence. If you believe this supernatural omni exists, then your disagreement is with it. So, you should spend all the time you can, communicating your complaints with it, and not those of us that are mere dots on this universal petri dish, created by your omni god.

I guess a lot of people will have issues to discuss with God when the time comes. If they can get a word in edgeways. :flower:

Nah, not at all. It would be an interesting discussion indeed. :eyes:

We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species. — universeness

Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible?

Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc.

We must maintain everyone's free will to admire and pursue a true meaning of reality with respect to them personally, otherwise we are some autocratic dictator enforcing our beliefs on others whether they want to accept them or not. Hardly justifiable.

Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing. For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation.

Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.

No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."

Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts?

Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible? — Benj96

All gods. I have no problem with someone's personal woo woo regarding their personal god.
They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based only.

Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc. — Benj96

You can choose to give mindspace to the woo woo beliefs of others if you wish, it's your brain space.
I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that.

Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing. — Benj96

That seems to be your analysis and employment of the word 'worship,' but it's certainly not mine.
I can experience heights of emotion, yes, as all humans can but I have never applied such a manic term as 'worship,' to any of my drivers or goals in life.

For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation. — Benj96

If that is an analysis of my posting on TPF then I reject it completely and I would suggest that certainly on this thread, I have provided as much evidence for my position as any of the anti-life posters.
If you think I am being a bit harsh towards the anti-life posters, then fine but perhaps that's just because I am not as tender a foot as you. You reveal your own conceit with "And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself.

Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.
No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."
Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts? — Benj96

Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS.
Donald Trump is the most intelligent man on the planet earth today!
I saw god's face in my cornflakes this morning!
Napoleon was actually a lizard alien from an exoplanet in the Vega star system!
I can tell you all the major events in your future!
I can speak to dead people.
Any of these seem like BS to you Mr Benj?

They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based — universeness

Happy to explain. Bring it on. Give me all you got.

I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that. — universeness

You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethics? You don't believe these things are not worth credence? (belief). Tell me then what do you believe in place of ethics, reason logic etc? Surely something you deem more enlightening I'm eager to hear all about it. I'm not one bit intimidated or afraid of having such an argument. Let it all be put out there.

And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself. — universeness

You assume incorrectly. I need not do any such thing. I don't compliment myself beyond anyone else's personal values. I value discussion above all. The verdict is up to others to decide. I simply have confidence that my views aren't intended to purposefully aggravate and harm others for the sake of it.

Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS. — universeness

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so".

Any of these seems like BS to you Mr Benj? — universeness

Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted.

What is truly valuable/useful is arguing those beliefs you genuinely believe in and don't wish to be contradicted. Which I'm happy to oblige in doing if they seem unreasonable.

As I said before and will repeat for clarity, I'm not perturbed by the prospect of arguing my points against yours to establish what the actual case is. Do your very worst. Let reason pervade /determine who has the reigns here.

Happy to explain. Bring it on. Give me all you got. — Benj96

Go ahead, explain!

You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethcis? — Benj96

I don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural compared to the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing.

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? — Benj96

No , you are getting too excited! I am just able to recognise BS. I am sure you can do it to.

Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted. — Benj96

Ok let's try a less extreme example.

An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil.

To me that's just BS because its illogical. If a creature is omnipotent, then it has full control over suffering. What do you think?

Go ahead, explain! — universeness

What would you like to start with?

don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural than the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing. — universeness

And what do you believe is "supernatural"? Please clarify.

. I am sure you can do it to. — universeness

I can indeed. :)

An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil. — universeness

An omnipotent object (person) cannot exist based on physics and thermodynamics. A single object cannot overcome the restriction of its own minute objectivity - a person cannot physically move mountains for example. It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course.

The universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people).

And what do you believe is "supernatural"? Please clarify. — Benj96

Supernatural has no existent.

An omnipotent object (person) cannot exist based on physics and thermodynamics. — Benj96

So you agree with me then. If you insist that an omnipotent creature can exist, then you are in BS territory. yes?

It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course. — Benj96

What has that got to do with whether or not an omnipotent creature can exist?

he universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people). — Benj96

The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent. The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything. As you type, the concept of evil is a human concept, its relevance to the universe is not understood and it is BS to suggest otherwise. Is your basic complaint here that I think the term BS is warranted at times and you don't? I have already suggested that perhaps you are simply more tenderfooted than I. You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care if its just that, your particular taste, when involved in discourse with others. You can hold hands with the anti-life posters if you want, as you try to reason with them that they are wrong. I choose to apply the term BS towards them when they type BS. If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you. Go for it, let anyone who wants to cover you in BS, do so. You don't seem to mind.

What would you like to start with? — Benj96

We started a while ago.

Addition: The universe has no known intent so are you positing the universe as an omnipotent wiith no intent?

Supernatural has no existent. — universeness

It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it? How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any format - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist.

So you agree with me then. If you insist that an omnipotent creature can exist, then you are in BS territory. yes? — universeness

Yes I agree with you that an omnipotent "creature" (object/living thing) doesnt exist. I do think on the other hand that an omnipotent system exists (the universe).

The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent — universeness

You have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist. And by the "universe" I mean "everything that exists" which would thus still be the full set, other universes would merely be a subset of "thee universe" (entirety) in that case.
Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line.

The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything — universeness

I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent. If energy cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics) then it is finite in quantity (yet still omnipotent as it is "all energy" available to the system).

Whether that sum of energy is arranged in a cycle or not seems irrelevant/incoherent with the argument.

You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care — universeness

Whoa cowboy. I have no distaste towards you - someone engaging in philosophocal argument is harmless. I don't know you. We are merely in the process of discourse, you have your views and I have mine, I see no space for personal attack only challenging beliefs. Doesn't seem reasonably to me to have distaste for a person as people are not equal to/defined by the beliefs they hold. Beliefs and opinions change.

If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you. — universeness

Well as far as I know the term "BS" is used mostly a quick, informal, sharp, derogative and aggressive term used to disable other people's beliefs more by intimidation and blunt hostility than welcome discourse. More formal academic terms for "BS" would be "falsity", "contradiction", "deception", "deceit", "paradox", "illogicality" or "irrationality". Many synonyms indeed, a bit less emotionally charged and personal than the word "BS" but I guess that's up to the person.

It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it? — Benj96

So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS.

How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any formt - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist. — Benj96

By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense.

You have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist. — Benj96

Stalemate then!

Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line. — Benj96

Infinity is not a measure, it is a concept just like paradox is not a state of propositional logic, it is also just a concept. We are unable to take such concepts any further than we have taken them in the past 100 years or more. We probably need another million years of scientific effort before we can garnish any real meaning from such concepts.

I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent. — Benj96

How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent.

Whoa cowboy. I have no distaste towards you — Benj96

Paint your wagon anyway you want! I judge by what you type not what you think you typed. You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient.

Many synonyms indeed, a bit less emotionally charged and personal than the word "BS" but I guess that's up to the person. — Benj96

Yes, it is!

So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS. — universeness

But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc?
Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof external to them?

By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense. — universeness

Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help

How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent. — universeness

Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent? If we have no intent/desire/agency then we wouldn't have free will would we?

I think entropy - the tendency for energy to spread away from itself is countered by negentropy - the ability of systems to self organise through gravity, then self assembly of prebiotic chemicals, then life as a strictly regulated system then evolution of that system into conscious awareness which further organises knowledge into strictly categorised information and relationships etc - the external system becoming more chaotic and spread out but the internal system (self) becoming more organised and coalesced.

You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient. — universeness

To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful.

Any viewpoint - agreeable or not to me - is insightful, it holds informative value.

Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic?

But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc? — Benj96

I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you?

Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof? — Benj96

You seem to depend too much on generalised conceptualisations rather than paying attention to the much more interesting, and reliable detailed case by case approach.

The family member may be a person who has cried wolf many times before or they may be sad, that's a judgement call based on your relationship. What has that got to do with whether human emotions actually exist. There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need? Do you agree that you may show empathy and believe what another says about themselves, let them into your house and then watch them kill your family? Perhaps you need to be careful when you judge the intentions of others.

Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help — Benj96

I will try, The universe has no intent that we are aware of. We are not a networked consciousness, we experience individuality. There is me, myself and I (triune brain system) and everyone else.
I/WE demonstrate intent, so this could be conceived in its totality, as the intent of the universe.
My circle example can demonstrate this through individual choice of where a particular circle begins and ends (same place). Individually we can all choose any position we like on the circle. Every position on the circle is on offer, in this way the universe can be 'investigated' by creatures such as us. The fact that we can perform such investigations in the individual way we can (but we can also communicate our findings to each other), is evidence that there IS a YOU and an I. It is a demonstrable way to support 'I think therefore I am.'

Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent? — Benj96

Yes. But the intent is individual, not universal, although there may be some concept of totality that we can suggest is some kind of emerging panpsychism but based on current evidence ...... meh!

To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful. — Benj96

Apology accepted and appreciated.

Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic? — ssu

Same reason why so many humans are still attracted to the 'freak show,' imo.
Finding out why some members of a species would vote for not just terminating themselves, but would vote for the termination of all life that is capable of suffering is fascinating, especially when it is based on free choice and not any law of nature. No amount of happiness can compensate for any amount of suffering it seems. Is there any cut off percentage for the anti-life people? If the average amount of human suffering against human happiness was 45% suffering and 55% happiness would that be good enough or do they want something like 5% suffering and 95% happiness?

I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you? — universeness

What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method? And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter.

If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder.

Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences.

There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need? — universeness

In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one..
As for requiring evidence I don't need objective evidence that others have emotions. I have them. And thus I believe others also have them in their likeness to me as being human.
I use subjective evidence (trust) not objective scientifically proven evidence that they have emotions.

You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions. Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction.

Apology accepted and appreciated. — universeness

Thank you. You're more than welcome.

What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method? — Benj96

Well yes, especially for 'important information,' about the structure and workings of the universe but I also consider as empirical, my own empirical evidence for such information as 'She can be trusted,' 'He is a good guy,' etc. My empirical evidence would be my own observation of what they do and say. No doubt you apply a similar approach yourself, yes?

And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter. — Benj96

Ethics are memorialised as words on paper and you measure by observing attempts to apply them.
I can act as an observer which convinces me that observers exist. I already typed to you that I think solipsism is nonsense.

If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder. — Benj96

This sound like a theistic viewpoint that posits morality can only come from a god.
Human morality and human ethics would not allow such behaviour. I would not vote for cutting up living people to collect some perceived evidence we can't collect when they are dead, would you?
Your statement is a bit mad, is it not?

Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences. — Benj96

I don't follow your logic here, Perhaps you could reword it. The last sentence makes little sense.

In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one.. — Benj96

No bluff involved, I am only reffering to my basic understanding of what neuroscience has and is investigating. A very basic example from wiki:

Jenny sees a snake.

Jenny cognitively assesses the snake in her presence. Cognition allows her to understand it as a danger.
Her brain activates the adrenal glands which pump adrenaline through her blood stream, resulting in increased heartbeat.
Jenny screams and runs away.

There has been a lot more detailed work done in the field of neuroscience to identify which parts of the brain light up during certain emotions and then much more detailed work on what is going on in those particular brain regions etc. I have only a laymans knowledge of the area but they have made a lot of progress. Have a look at my thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13222/consciousness-microtubules-and-the-physics-of-the-brain

You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions. — Benj96

No, I typed that I give more credence to information backed by empirical evidence than I do to information not supported by such. There is plenty of evidence that people have emotions.

Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction. — Benj96

Empirical in that it can be tested/investigated by experiment.
Yes, you can test the emotional responses of individuals, either in a lab or even personally in a social environment. We do it every day in our relationships, do we not? I still don't see the contradiction you are suggesting I have made. I am sure you can clearly highlight it more convincingly.

Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic? — ssu

It's so boring and vacuous that, by becoming obsessed with it, it reinforces the adherents beloved notion that life is.tout court, boring and empty. Because it's a kind of constant complaint it delights those who love to constantly complain, and attracts others who love to call the complainers out for being whimps and whingers.

Because it's a kind of constant complaint it delights those who love to constantly complain, — Janus

When the world stops becoming something to complain about…

and attracts others who love to call the complainers out for being whimps and whingers. — Janus

These I don’t get.

If the antinatalism argument can be said to be boring, it is only because it's an open and shut case.

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Go on...

Why ought we discourage that?